Mendeley users revolt against Elsevier takeover

Post by SkyMarshal » Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 6:33 PM UTC

hemmer wrote: post #49

1337biz wrote: post #4

I don't get it. It was absolutely clear that they were using a propiretory software owned by a for-profit company. There a perfectly viable alternatives, Open Source and free to use e.g. Zotero et al.

I really like the way Mendeley handles notes, specifically highlighting / annotating PDFs. Do you know of any alternatives that include this? I was planning on writing my own at some point but it might be a bit ambitious.

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 6:43 PM UTC

spindritf wrote: post #47

onemorepassword wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

an organization dedicated, not to maximize profits for shareholders, but to keep power over scientific research in people’s hands That's why we have governments. No, I'm not being sarcastic. The public sector is there to serve the public good, and this is quite obviously a public good. I'm not anti-privatization either. Private exploitation under public laws and guidelines is a common strategy to solve these issues.…

> It's time we address the real problem. The real problem is that some companies manage to exploit a monopoly granted to them by the government in ways that are not pleasing to the public. The government is the entity which created the problem. Granted, while solving another but it will still be the government agents who break down your door and arrest you if you build an unauthorized competitor or even just try to r…

Post by jbooth » Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 6:47 PM UTC

spindritf wrote: post #47

onemorepassword wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

an organization dedicated, not to maximize profits for shareholders, but to keep power over scientific research in people’s hands That's why we have governments. No, I'm not being sarcastic. The public sector is there to serve the public good, and this is quite obviously a public good. I'm not anti-privatization either. Private exploitation under public laws and guidelines is a common strategy to solve these issues.…

> It's time we address the real problem. The real problem is that some companies manage to exploit a monopoly granted to them by the government in ways that are not pleasing to the public. The government is the entity which created the problem. Granted, while solving another but it will still be the government agents who break down your door and arrest you if you build an unauthorized competitor or even just try to r…

Post by kanzure » Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 6:52 PM UTC

jessriedel wrote: post #92

mjn wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends on what parts you're using. If you're using Mendeley mainly as a personal reference manager, Zotero is as good as Mendeley or better imo. But it doesn't have a web-based social layer like Mendeley does, for people who like that part.

I think Mendeley had more advantages over Zotero than the social aspect (which I never used). Mendeley could automatically incorporate your folder of orphan PDFs into your library, automatically fetching the bibliographic info. It had a nice dedicated desktop client for searching your library, correctly bib info, and adding notes and whatnot to papers, which just isn't as nice on a browser.

    > I think Mendeley had more advantages over Zotero than the social aspect
    > (which I never used). Mendeley could automatically incorporate your
    > folder of orphan PDFs into your library

    > automatically fetching the bibliographic info.

    > It had a nice dedicated desktop client for searching your library

Post by PeterisP » Wed, Apr 10, 2013, 7:11 PM UTC

pms wrote: post #87

pseut wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Provide for the papers a system of transparent reviews... [snipped] I don't think this is a technical issue. Journals make mistakes on which papers to publish all the time, even when the referees work hard and take the review seriously, so this is hard for committed people to do well.

Sure, but reviews are not transparent, nor accessible to the public. Why not? Wouldn't it be nice to see what other people think about the article before reading it? Currently there are citations, but that's about it.